The Misalignment of the Gods

[Riposte]

Being it able to drop it is my opinion of doing it right.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The explanation you state doesn't appear in the PHB or the DMG, as far as I know. The explanation actually given in the PHB is that Merlora is not aligned with the cosmological team whose goal is the spread of suffering.

That's exactly what I'm saying. She's an evil goddess who purposefully killed entire swathes of innocent people and toppled two empires "just because," yet she's not labeled as evil because she doesn't hang out with Asmodeus on the weekends. It doesn't matter that she's a cruel butcher - she's not with "Team Evil" so she's unaligned instead. It's dumb.

 

[Particle_Man]

The problem is that they didn't remove it or give it serious attention. Instead we got a half-assed approach that does favors for no one. That's what I object to personally. Do it right or don't do it.

What any individual group does at their table is their buisness. The tools WotC gave them however is all of our buisness.

On the contrary it does favours for both.

Are you arguing that alignment cannot be stripped out of a homebrew 4e game?

In that case, you are wrong. It is trivial to strip it out.

Are you arguing that alignment cannot be used as is in a 4e game?

In that case, you are wrong. We are using it as is in our campaign with no issues.

Are you arguing that alignment cannot be strengthened in a homebrew 4e game?

In that case, I believe that you are wrong. Those that want more alignment can add it in rather easily, if that floats their boat.

 

[Andor]

Are you arguing that alignment cannot be stripped out of a homebrew 4e game?

Are you arguing that alignment cannot be strengthened in a homebrew 4e game?

I didn't say either of those things. Just how hard do you have to squint to misconstrue this?

What any individual group does at their table is their buisness.

What I am saying is that not only did we get a lobotomized version of the alignment system, but they didn't even bother to treat it seriously themselves as this discussion about the Gods and their poorly chosen alignments illustrates. I expect better from any RPG publisher worthy of the name.

 

[Andor]

Anyway back on topic let's turn our attention to team Evil.

Now it's pretty hard to screw up an evil alignment but let's have a look.

Asmodeus: Traditionally the poster child for LE. His tenents might as well be called 'How to foster rebellion in 3 easy lessons' nonetheless he certainly seems to earn his evil badge.

Bane: Previously one of the more bloodthirsty murder gods. Looking at his tennents he appears to be the God of Drill Sargeants. Aside from having conquest in his portfolio I don't actually see anything evil here. *sigh*

Gruumsh: Ringing up a 9 on the evil-o-meter Gruumsh has gone from being a God of Orcs to God of pointless destruction. He does earn his CE rating.

Lolth: Seems evil, although maybe not CE. I fail to see why the drow would bother to worship her however. She seems like nothing but trouble.

Tharizdun: Basically the Nameless god form Raymond Feist's Midkemia books. Suitable source of depraved cults. Earns his CE.

Tiamat: Essentially the Goddess of Daffy Duck. "Desecrated-schmesecrated. As long as I'm rich." They kind of reach for it, but we'll give her a team evil badge.

Torog: Creepy Bondage God. Seems evil, likes torture. We'll give him an 8 on the evil-o-meter.

Vecna: Seems to have been moved to 'God of creepy loners.' Tennents are: Keep secrets. Wear black. Murder all other clerics. We'll give him his badge because of that last one but he's not getting much past halfway on the scale.

Zehir: The new god of murder. 'Delight in poison and surround yourself with snakes.' Apparently herpetologists are evil. Who knew? Nonetheless we'll grant the team evil badge and parking space.

Hmmm.... Well it really does seem to be harder to screw up evil. Bane seems to have been misplaced, and I'm not sure Lloth earns her CE (or has a point for that matter) but otherwise it's just quibbles.

 

[Mallus]

Now it's pretty hard to screw up an evil alignment but let's have a look... snip...

You've obviously spent quite a bit of time thinking about how 4e alignment won't work for you.

You could have spent that time tweaking it until it did...

 

[Insight]

I want to clarify my earlier statement about getting rid of alignment. WOTC has made it very easy for individual game groups to get rid of alignment, because there's no mechanical reason for it to exist. I am NOT advocating WOTC get rid of alignment, because some people like it. But the nice thing is now that you can get rid of it and not miss it.

 

[mlund]

Change is not good, nor bad, it's something neutral. Although when it's for good, people like to call it change, when it's bad, people call it crisis. Freedom, trade, travel and adventure are quite neutral (unaligned) terms in my opinion.

I'd disagree. While it is certainly possible to take any generally benevolent activity and make it self-serving or even abusive, it doesn't imply that the temperate mean or the common use of these concepts is not virtuous.

Freedom on its face communicates a concept of self-determination and personal liberty rather than the wanton disregard of any assumed obligations or moral imperatives.

Trade on its face implies the relatively free exchange of goods and services between willing parties to their mutual benefit rather than the blackmail of property from one party to stay the hand of force from another.

Adventure in the context of the D&D Player's Handbook implies heroic feats and characters meeting the call of fantastic destinies rather than the pillaging, subjugation, and destruction that might come from "Evil Adventures."

Travel seems neutral to me on its face, though. It is probably still better than compulsive immobility, though.

Nothing interesting here except the luck thingy. Luck is, again, a neutral term.

From the common man's perspective, however, Luck means "good fortune" and it means easing the burdens of everyday living for 99% of the population of such a world. Sure, the occasional Villain might pull a Yahtzee! and take over a kingdom, but that's not the general implication here either.

This one is awful. I can see the good part if we are talking about a tyranny and slaves, but things are not so easy. There are laws that limit people, but those laws are to be respected, even if they cut a bit your freedom (like, freedom to insult the king!) Erathis is angry.

The goddess may disagree with laws that confine people to social classes, caste systems, and the like. Most of the laws that limit people actually just limit their ability to impose on the freedoms of their neighbors - like depriving them of sleep by playing loud music or depriving them of their life, liberty, or property for your own gain or amusement.

Liberty != Anarchy

For the better for who? Change is neutral, and if it goes better for some, it's worse for others.

That's simply not true. First of all, there are certainly ways to improve the lot of many people without harming the lot of others. Unless you define your "good" and "bad" relative to what your neighbor has rather than what you have your neighbor's good fortune is not automatically purchased by your misfortune. Life is not a zero-sum game. Moreover, "for the better" is probably referring to the macro-scale - the greater body of sapient mortal beings. I'm sure it cheeses off demons and devils when innocents benefit, but, again, a context that's out in left field.

An anarchist character that uses violent methods could worship Avandra. He thinks that overthrowing the King is for the better, the change of political system is good and his freedom to roam naked the town is really needed!

Again, while he may worship and believe I doubt his would be considered "change for the better" and his anarchy would likely lead to the violation of the liberties of his neighbors.

- Marty Lund

 

[hamishspence]

How, precisely, did Melora topple two Empires?

I'd really like to know this. Which article/book page is it in? Yeenoghu was key to the fall of Nerath, and Arkhosia and Bael Turath ripped themselves up, no contribution from Melora as far as I know.

Oppose the rampant spread of empires: this was a Harper dictum. Are the Harpers evil? Protect the wild places is traditional for druids.

If you believe conquest to be at least moderately evil, that fits for Bane. Making war on others to take their land and freedom is not seen as Good these days.

 

[Andor]

I'd really like to know this. Which article/book page is it in? Yeenoghu was key to the fall of Nerath, and Arkhosia and Bael Turath ripped themselves up, no contribution from Melora as far as I know.

Oppose the rampant spread of empires: this was a Harper dictum. Are the Harpers evil? Protect the wild places is traditional for druids.

If you believe conquest to be at least moderately evil, that fits for Bane. Making war on others to take their land and freedom is not seen as Good these days.

It's from the 'Ecology of the Dragonborn' article.

Both sides suffered internal strife, mirroring the surface conflict. Tiamat’s cult wormed away inside Arkhosia, weakening it. The desire of common folk to be free of infernal shackles poisoned Bael Turath’s well of power. Bane’s cult worked both sides, stoking the war hotter, while extremists loyal to Melora
aimed to bring both empires down. Bitterness strengthened the utter incompatibility of ethos between the two nations.

So Melora's followers were right there with the cults of Bane and Tiamat bringing down the Empires.